“If you believe that government is like a business, Voting is like is like any other market place product.With insufficient patronage, it will eventually cease being available.” ~ Michael R. Honig, Nov. 5, 2014

TEXAS: REGISTER TO VOTE FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION

EARLY VOTING STARTED TODAY AND WILL RUN THROUGH NOVEMBER 4TH. To vote in November 8th’s presidential elections, you had to be registered by TUESDAY, October 11th

British Prime Minister Theresa May tried to persuade the leaders of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on Monday to work with her government on a common Brexit negotiating position, but the Scottish leader dismissed the meeting as “deeply frustrating”.

May says that while the devolved governments of the UK’s three smaller nations should give their views on what the terms of Brexit should be, they must not undermine the UK’s strategy by seeking separate settlements with the EU.

[Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon] said she would make specific proposals over the next few weeks to keep Scotland in the single market even if the rest of the UK left, and that May had said she was prepared to listen to options.

“So far those words are not matched by substance or actions and that is what has got to change,” Sturgeon said.

Sturgeon, head of the Scottish National Party, has said her government is preparing for all possibilities, including independence from the UK, after Britain leaves the EU. She wants each of the UK’s four assemblies to get a vote on the proposed negotiating package.

In Northern Ireland, there are fears that Brexit could undermine a 1998 peace deal and lead to the reintroduction of unpopular and cumbersome controls on the border with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member.

Northern Ireland’s First Minister Arlene Foster said the devolved nations had to be at “the heart of the process” so that issues relevant to them could be tackled as they arose.

Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones said it was difficult for the devolved administrations to influence the process when there was so much uncertainty over what the government was seeking.

Jones said he had argued very strongly for “full and unfettered access” to the EU’s single market, which is in doubt because EU leaders say it would require Britain to continue to accept EU freedom of movement rules.

One of the central planks of the pro-Brexit campaign was that exiting the EU would give Britain greater control over immigration and help reduce the numbers arriving in the country.

Lawmakers on Sunday condemned a Pentagon effort to recoup enlistment bonuses improperly paid to thousands of California National Guard soldiers a decade ago, saying the overpayments were not the soldiers’ fault and calling on the Pentagon or Congress to waive their debts.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy pledged a House investigation of the problem, calling the Pentagon demands for repayment of bonuses from combat veterans “disgraceful.”

The 4th Industrial Revolution: The robots are coming. And they’re coming for your job.

The First industrial revolution This process began in Britain in the 18th century and from there spread to other parts of the world. Although used earlier by French writers, the term Industrial Revolution was first popularized by the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee (1852–83) to describe Britain’s economic development from 1760 to 1840.Jan 20, 2016.Industrial Revolution | Britannica.com

, economist.com/node/21553017: THE first industrial revolution began in Britain in the late 18th century, with the mechanisation of the textile industry. Tasks previously done laboriously by hand in hundreds of weavers’ cottages were brought together in a single cotton mill, and the factory was born. The second industrial revolution came in the early 20th century, when Henry Ford mastered the moving assembly line and ushered in the age of mass production. The first two industrial revolutions made people richer and more urban. Now a third revolution is under way. Manufacturing is going digital. As this week’s special report argues, this could change not just business, but much else besides.

The first two industrial revolutions made people richer and more urban. Now a third revolution is under way. Manufacturing is going digital.Apr 21, 2012

The new rule is that a president needs 50 senators to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

If Clinton wins and Democrats pull enough Senate seats, Republicans will oppose her nominee, and then, eventually, Democrats will change the rules to abolish filibusters of Supreme Court nominees. (Republicans will decry this foul measure and justify any subsequent actions of their own as justified revenge.) If Clinton wins and Republicans hold on to 51 seats, they will simply refuse to let any nominee through. The fact that it is McCain, a personal friend of Clinton and as strong an institutionalist as can be found in the Senate, … is proposing to extend the blockade indefinitely shows just how deep the commitment runs through the party.

The implication of this claim, though, is that if Hillary Clinton wins the election, Republicans will give her latitude to appoint a reasonably well-qualified, non-extreme jurist to the vacant spot. I have long been skeptical that Republicans would actually go along with this if it comes to pass. And now John McCain confirms it. In an interview touting fellow Republican Senator Pat Toomey, McCain pledges that he and his party will continue the Supreme Court blockade throughout Clinton’s term. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said. …

Senate Republicans have formed a united front around the principle Barack Obama should not be able to appoint a replacement for Antonin Scalia, and that the seat should instead be selected by the winner of the 2016 election. This “principle” rests on a wildly selective reading of senatorial history, according to which it is somehow improper for a president to fill a Supreme Court seat in his final year. In reality, this principle has never existed before and was concocted on the fly in order to justify the simple exertion of power.

Extreme weather:

Not all climate change is global warming, but global warming is driving all climate change.

Progressives settled on the term “climate change” after the Right began using the term and confusing the issue with cold ‘weather’ as a contradiction to “Global Warming.”

… It should be a simple question, but it’s written in the obtuse vernacular of lawmakers who really don’t want voters to understand it.

The ballot provision will ask voters to authorize the board of trustees of HISD to purchase attendance credits from the state with local tax revenue. That sounds like a good, progressive measure, but be warned – it is a trick question.

If this misleading ballot provision passes, HISD will not only be required to send $162 million in local property tax dollars to the state next year. The district will also likely face higher annual payments for the foreseeable future under the state’s broken school finance system.

The mandate comes about because rising property values have made HISD subject to “Robin Hood” provisions under the Texas Education Code. All those skyscrapers and rapidly appreciating homes have apparently pushed HISD over the top.

Opinion: As Texas schools are financed through property taxes, the recapture provisions (what we know as Robin Hood) were supposed to provide a way to equalize school funding across the state – for poor and wealthy schools alike.

In May, the Texas Supreme Court held that this system of school finance is marginally constitutional. Consider that assessment a D-minus grade. The fact of the matter is that the state’s school funding formula fails to accomplish its intended goals of helping poor school districts.

Technically these recaptured funds are supposed to help schools that need the resources. If the provision worked like a true Robin Hood, it would “rob” from the rich and “give” to the poor. But in reality, the system robs from the poor and gives to legislators so that they don’t have to raise state taxes. There’s no guarantee that poor schools will receive a single extra dime if HISD pays up.

How does this work? Simply put, the state keeps two bank accounts: one for general revenue and one for the recaptured Robin Hood sums. Every dollar that the state pays from Robin Hood frees up general revenue money that the state otherwise would have to spend to help poor schools. So instead of giving extra money to needy districts, any HISD money will essentially be spent on highways, border security or some other appropriation besides education.

If this passes, then HISD is projected to send more than $1 billion of our local property taxes to the state over the next four years. Not only does that hurt HISD, but it looks an awful lot like a state property tax – which is prohibited in the Texas Constitution.

Houston’s economy is strong and diverse, but to maintain that edge Houston needs well-educated students. If HISD has to pay recapture, it will face a $95 million budget deficit in the next budget cycle.

In an ironic twist, that budget deficit will end up hurting the very students that Robin Hood is supposed to help. More than 75 percent of HISD students are disadvantaged. It is a sign of our bizarre and busted school finance system that the district with the largest number of poor families will have to give away critically needed resources.

Voters can block this preposterous outcome. By voting no, Houstonians will keep their money and instead authorize the commissioner of education to detach $18 billion worth of commercial property from HISD and assign it to other school districts. This has never happened before, and such a radical move would give the Legislature an opportunity to rectify the situation.

A “no” vote won’t end the problem. However, it will give the Legislature the entire 2017 session to fix school finance in Texas and keep local taxpayer dollars in our HISD schools.

It is a tricky question, but the answer is simple. Vote “No” on attendance credits.

Houston Independent School District (ISD) voters face an unhappy choice this November – vote “YES” on Proposition 1 to authorize the state to recapture roughly $160 million of the school district’s property taxes or just vote “NO.” It seems like a no brainer. School board members, several other local officials and the Houston Chronicle editorial board are urging a “NO” vote, as a way to protest a state school finance system commonly referred to as “Robin Hood.”

What folks aren’t being told, though, is that a “NO” vote is a “YES” vote for higher taxes.

The election is required because the value of property relative to the number of its students has grown so rapidly that Houston ISD is now considered a “wealthy district” under the state’s school funding mechanism. For Texas’ school finance system to meet constitutional muster, revenues must be equalized – a system commonly referred to as “Robin Hood.” Wealthy districts have to share a portion of their taxes with poorer districts. The simplest way to do that is for Houston ISD to write a check to the state – something that must be authorized by local voters,

and what Proposition 1 would allow.

Nobody wants their local tax dollars to leave the district, so “NO” seems like an easy vote. Unfortunately if “NO” prevails, the Commissioner of Education by law MUST detach approximately $20 billion of high – value business

properties from Houston ISD and assign them to a less wealthy district.

That equates to approximately 40 percent of all business property and 12 percent of the total taxable value of the district. This is not a one-time process. The Commissioner will have to continue to detach more property each year as Houston’s values rise.

A vote for HISD Proposition 1 will transfer more than $1 billion from HISD to state bureaucrats in the next four years, close neighborhood schools, lay off thousands of teachers – more than 1,400 in the first year – and drastically curtail other resources critical to health and learning that keep students in school, off the streets and on track to graduate.

The closure of schools and rapid decline of our local education system will also decimate neighborhoods, hurt our economy and make Houston unattractive to businesses and people looking to relocate here.

Yet, if voters vote against the proposition, state law allows the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to take the funds by detaching commercial properties such as office buildings or large shopping centers from the HISD tax rolls—and assigning them to the tax rolls of other school districts (where they are likely to be taxed at higher rates).

So why vote AGAINST the HISD proposition?

A consensus has emerged that the only way to force the legislature to pass comprehensive school finance reform is to fight back—by refusing to authorize this massive transfer of our school funds to other districts.

State law required HISD to put this proposition on the ballot, yet every HISD trustee and the superintendent oppose it. A vote against recapture by the largest school district in Texas will throw a wrench into the current, unfair system.

No school district has voted against a recapture measure and the TEA has never before tried to enforce its authority to detach properties from a school district’s tax rolls. HISD is certain to challenge the TEA in court and that in turn will create a crisis for state legislators and force them to deal with this issue in the upcoming session.

It’s a novel approach but the alternative for HISD is much worse. This election is the only chance that voters will have to intervene. Once a district votes to authorize recapture payments, it can never go back.

That’s why a growing coalition of people and organizations that typically disagree—Democrats, Republicans, business and labor leaders—are coming together to oppose HISD Proposition 1, protect our public schools and keep our city from falling into economic decline.

When our two-party system of Democrats vs. Republicans is functioning properly, there is much to recommend it. …

In recent years, however, something has gone terribly awry. The Republican Party made the deliberate calculation that its best prospects for success lied not in abiding by the system and offering its superior ideas for governing, but instead in undermining the system by seeking to destroy its opponent.

This deplorable strategy from our political leaders is hardly the sort of conduct that our great democracy was designed to foster.

If Trump were to win the election in November, this would send a horrible message. A Trump victory would loudly proclaim that all of these underhanded political strategies of creating gridlock and sowing the seeds of frustration and division are indeed successful strategies…

If the election turns out to be close—even if Trump were defeated—these vile political strategies would still flourish. The Republican Party would likely conclude that their tactics brought them near to victory, so these tactics are effective and should be pursued more vigorously.

If, on the other hand, Trump suffered an enormous defeat in an overwhelming landslide, well, then, this would send a very different message. And imagine if this landslide also led to the Democratic Party gaining control of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and various state and local governments as well.

Republicans would be forced to face the reality that… their vile strategies of division and destruction incited the worst instincts in their party, led to the rise of the disastrous Trump candidacy and resulted in utter failure. They would be forced to abandon their scorched-earth tactics, and instead return to the good old-fashioned concept of what our system is all about in the first place. Namely, the Republicans would be forced into focusing less on destroying their opponents, and more on offering positive and constructive ideas of their own. They would also be forced to abandon their “my way or the highway” approach, and instead compromise with the Democrats to forge bipartisan solutions to governing.

Our system would then be returned to balance, and the public trust in our government would be restored. A landslide defeat of Trump would not only dispatch with a dangerous demagogue, but it would also go a long way toward restoring the proper functioning of our democracy.

If there was any remaining doubt that North Carolina’s voting restrictions — which require a photo ID to vote and limit early voting days — are about disenfranchising black people, recent comments by a top Republican consultant in the state should put that doubt to rest.

“Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.

“Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn said. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”

From MIKE: Texas has the same logic, and even presented it in court, when the Texas Voter ID law was challenged. To paraphrase, ‘We’re not discriminating against minorities. We’re discriminating against Democrats.’

“The Florida Bar says it has no jurisdiction. The state attorney in Leon County has taken a pass. So have the governor’s office and the Legislature, both of which could demand hearings if they wanted.“Imagine you were robbed and the prosecutor gave the suspect a pass after taking $25,000 from him. There would be universal outrage — and rightfully so. This is not the behavior of an ethical prosecutor. If Floridians want action, they should speak up. But it may be up to the U.S. Justice Department.When a prosecutor has been asked to investigate someone — and instead takes $25,000 in campaign cash from him — it’s the prosecutor who most needs probing. That’s why I began digging into this way back in 2013 — long before Trump was even a candidate for the White House.”The Orlando Sentinel’s Scott Maxwell – who uncovered Trump’s illegal political bribe to Bondi in the first place – was given the honor of publishing an op-ed column [“New records show Bondi needs probing in Trump mess, Maxwell says“] explaining that Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi deserved the bulk of the scrutiny as both a Republican elected official and as a lawyer who betrayed the public trustand that federal prosecution is the only genuine option available for the state’s top law enforcement officer:

Donald Trump paid the IRS a $2,500 penalty this year, an official at Trump’s company said, after it was revealed that Trump’s charitable foundation had violated tax laws by giving a political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general.

The Washington Post and a liberal watchdog group raised new questions about the three-year-old gift. The watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed a complaint with the IRS — noting that, as a registered nonprofit, the Trump Foundation was not allowed to make political donations.

In that year’s tax filings, The Post reported, the Trump Foundation did not notify the IRS of this political donation. Instead, Trump’s foundation listed a donation — also for $25,000 — to a Kansas charity with a name similar to that of Bondi’s political group. In fact, Trump’s foundation had not given the Kansas group any money.

The prohibited gift was, in effect, replaced with an innocent-sounding but nonexistent donation.

This is from Breitbart. It’s written as an inflammatory piece for their readers, but Progressives will actually read it as a tribute piece!

History of the terms: The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms “left” and “right” to refer to the opposing sides.[9]

… Libertarians tend to be logical and analytical. They are confident that their principles will create an ideal society, even though they have no consensus of what that society would be like. Greens, on the other hand, tend to be more intuitive and imaginative. They have clear images of what kind of society they want, but are fuzzy about the principles on which that society would be based.

Ironically, Libertarians tend to be more utopian and uncompromising about their political positions, and are often unable to focus on politically winnable proposals to make the system more consistent with their overall goals. Greens on the other hand, embrace immediate proposals with ease, but are often unable to show how those proposals fit in to their ultimate goals.

The most difficult differences to reconcile, however, stem from baggage that members of each party have brought with them from their former political affiliations. Most Libertarians are overly hostile to government and cling to the fiction that virtually all private fortunes are legitimately earned. Most Greens are overly hostile to free enterprise and cling to the fiction that harmony and balance can be achieved through increased government intervention.

The Treasury Department on Monday opened the curtain on one of our longest-lasting, and strangest, state secrets: how much U.S. debt does Saudi Arabia own?

The Treasury Department on Monday opened the curtain on one of our longest-lasting, and strangest, state secrets: how much U.S. debt does Saudi Arabia own?

The answer, as of March, is $116.8 billion. That may sound like a lot, but it places the Saudis only at 13th on the list of major foreign holders of treasuries. Leading the roll among the foreign holders of $6.3 trillion in securities are mainland China ($1.245 trillion) and Japan ($1.137 trillion).

Nearly all New York State pet owners talk to their pets like they’re fellow humans, according to a recent poll. Many believe their dogs and cats can respond with barks or meows that communicate hunger, fear, or simply the need to pee. But do the animals tawk back in a Brooklyn accent? That’s the sort of thing Swedish cat lover and phonetics researcher Suzanne Schötz is working to find out. After executing this strategy on every government program except the military and corporate welfare, is it now the turn of the Supreme Court?

The term “Conservative” is so inaccurate as currently used by the Media, the Media and all of us really need to rethink their classifications and terminology.

There are Liberals/Progressives and there are Conservatives. Both of those are fine and serve a useful purpose in civil opposition to each other.

Today’s “Conservatives” are conservative in name only

__________________________________________________________________

KPFT is a 501(c)3 non-profit, and it can always use your tax-deductible support. Most of the folks who work and broadcast at KPFTare volunteers, but it still has fixed and variable expenses, and it still costs $150/hour, 24/7/365 to keep KPFT on the air.

About Thinkwing Radio

Mike Honig is originally from Brooklyn, New York. He moved to Houston in September of 1977 and has been there ever since. Mike's interests are politics, history, science, science fiction (and reading generally), technology, and almost anything else. Mike has knowledge and experience in many diverse fields, sometimes from having worked in them, and sometimes from extensive reading or discussion about them. Mike's general knowledge makes him a favorite partner in Trivial Pursuit. He likes to say that about most things, he knows enough to be dangerous. Humility is a work-in-progress.